Mike is confused -- about your right to a "second opinion" before the minus lens is used

Dear Friends,


Subject: Mike's majority opinion (box-camera theory) versus the
second-opinion concerning the eye's ability to control
its refractive state to its accommodation signal.


Otis> I object to Mike's statement, "except for you", since I am
well-aware that other ODs and MDs who actually examine
objective-factual data have reached the conclusion that the
eye is dynamic in its fundamental behavior characteristic.


Re:> It is not obvious (except to you) that the eye grows longer
and shorter depending on what lens you place in front of it.
- Mike Tyner


Otis> It has become obvious to scientists and ophthalmologists
that in fact the natural eye does change its REFRACTIVE
STATUS as the accommodation SIGNAL is changed. I know you
like to attack me -- because I state objective, scientific
factual truth concerning the natural eye's behavior. Here
is Dr. David Guyton (John Hopkins Hospital) statment about
Mike's belief -- that the eye DOES NOT grows longer and
shorter depending on what lens you place in front of it. I
regret the fact that you are technically out-of-date
concerning this issue, and you think that the majority opinion is the ONLY
opinion. Dr. Guyton (Professor of Ophthalmology - JHU)
makes his statement about the ability of the eye to
adjust its refractive state (as a natural process) as enviroment is
changed. To make certain I do not miss-quote him -- here is
his statment:

_______________________________


The Physician's Perspective -- David L. Guyton, MD


According to old-wives' tales, wearing glasses makes the eyes
worse. Generations of ophthalmologists and optometrists have told
their patients just the opposite, that the eye's development is
predetermined by genetics and cannot be affected by glasses. A
growing body of animal and human research, however, suggests that
the old wives were right after all.

The ability of young rhesus monkeys' eyes to gradually change
shape in response to what they see comes as no surprise to vision
scientists. Over the past two decades, their studies have
demonstrated that the eyes of young birds, tree shrews, guinea
pigs, and marmosets react to unfocused images by altering their
growth to correct the problem.

It is highly likely that the eyes of infants and young
children also adapt to what they see. This adaptation occurs by a
relative change in eye length that works something like this: As
the front of the eye grows and becomes less curved, images focus
deeper and deeper within the eye. If the lengthwise growth
perfectly matches the change in the eye's other dimensions, then
images continue to focus on the retina. If there is a mismatch
and the focus is off by even the thickness of this paper, then
vision will be blurred. Remarkably, the eye apparently senses
where images focus and compensates when needed. If light focuses
in front of the retina, the eye will stop lengthening until the
images catch up. If the focus is behind the retina, the eye grows
in length at an accelerated rate until the retina is "pushed back"
to the correct spot relative to the eye's other dimensions.

Thanks to this feedback mechanism, the eyes generally
maintain clearly focused images throughout early life despite
dramatic changes in size.

In addition to eye size and shape, the distance between the
eye and the objects it is viewing also determines where images
focus. Near objects come to focus behind the retina, but the lens
changes shape and pulls the images forward until they are clear
enough to recognize. However, they often remain slightly behind
the retina. This slight mismatch may be the mechanism by which
prolonged close work such as reading can signal the eye to grow
longer. If such a signal occurs frequently and strongly enough in
early life, the human eye may gradually lengthen and become
permanently focused for near objects. This produces
nearsightedness.

Most of the adaptive changes in eye length occur during
infancy and youth, while the eye is still growing in its socket.
When the front of the eye stops growing, around age nine or ten,
any further adaptive change can occur only in the myopic direction
-Ä the eye can grow longer, but not shhorter. Activities such as
prolonged reading at close distances may cause the eyes to
continue lengthening well into one's 20s.

If this cycle of incomplete focus and eye lengthening is the
primary cause of myopia, how can we intervene in this process?


Some practitioners believe that limiting the amount of
close-up reading or television watching a child or young adult
does each day may prevent myopia. These days that is a difficult
task. So I advise parents to encourage children to hold objects
and reading materials as far away from their faces as comfortable,
and to sit at least three feet away from the television screen.
(Those who insist on holding books close to their eyes, or sitting
a foot from the television or computer, may already have developed
significant myopia or some other problem that warrants a
professional eye examination.)

For my young patients with simple myopia, I suggest they
leave their distance glasses off while reading, something I have
always done myself. A child who cannot see the board at school,
for example, should wear glasses to see the board, but remove them
when reading a book or writing.

Prolonged reading without glasses shouldn't stimulate the eye
to lengthen any farther than what is needed to comfortably focus
the eye at rest at the customary reading distance. By comparison,
when one reads through glasses or contact lenses designed to bring
the distant world into sharp focus, the page is focused behind the
retina. This may prompt another round of eye lengthening with
worsening of the myopia.


_____________________________



From: "Otis Brown" <>


Subject: Mike and his protective story. What is pure science?
What is the fundmental fact about the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye? Does the refractive state of the
natural eye "move negative" when you place a minus lens
on the natural eye -- or does it not?


Oakham's Razor: The philosophic rule that entities should not be
multiplied unnecessarily.


In other words, you should not invent additional explanations
about the experimental data that are more complex, and more
difficult, when a simpler explanation has already been provided.

If each experiment requires its own theory and explanation,
then we will have chaos. If we are not looking for fundamental
scientific truth, then why are we doing these experiments?


___________________


Re:> It is not obvious (except to you) that the eye grows longer
and shorter depending on what lens you place in front of it.
-MT

Otis> Again, Mike totally ignores the published scientific
literature from Dr. Dave Guyton. (i.e., eyes lengthen and
shorten as the visual environment is changed.) At the very
least Mike should state his belief as the "Majority"
opinion, and acknowledge that a highly qualified
ophthalmolgists holds the contrary, or "Second" opinion as I
do. Further, I am willing to restrict my statement to only
what a scientist actually MEASURES -- i.e., a refractive
state.

Otis> I have said nothing at all about "length". What I stated
was a matter of a DIRECT MEASUREMENT. A "length" is an
extrapolation of your box-camera theory -- which is a matter
of a convenient shop-practice theory.

Mike> No, "length" is something measured with ultrasonography.
You're familiar with ultrasound? A-scan, B-scan, all that
stuff? You know it shows myopes change axial length, right?

Otis> If we would restrict our words to ONLY direct measurement
you would establish that a population of natural eye "moves
down" it terms of refractive status, and a function of a
step-change in the average visual-environment.

Mike> 2/3 of the US population doesn't "move down."

Otis> Instead of using basic, clear language

Otis> Again, Mike is both restrictive and blind. He fails to
mention that 92 percent of people in highly intensive "close
work" professions, like medicine develop nearsightedness.
(Ref: Doctors on Taiwan -- published report.)

Mike> Basic and clear like "move down"?

Otis> ... you must "spin" very basic analysis and make eyes that
have 20/20, and normal refractive states appear defective
(error, hyperopia, ametropia, and the like)

Mike> So let's stop calling numbers to the left of zero
"negative". "Negative" implies "defective" so we shouldn't
use that term.

Otis> ... Because of the ASSUMPTIONS you have made -- that have
never been proven -- on a scientific level.

Mike> I ASSUME that optometrists stopped prescribing plus for a
reason.

Otis> Clearly the meaning of words is critical in understanding
that the natural eye is not a frozen box-camera.

Mike> So who considers the eye a "frozen box camera"? We measure
its changes over time, every day. We measure, you imagine.
Which of us has better data?

Otis> You can "freeze" the eye to do an "optical analysis", and I
understand that analysis, and the reasons for such an
"idealization".

Mike> I don't freeze anything, nor do I call refraction "optical
analysis".

Otis> But then you completely forget what you have done.

Mike> No, I write it down.

Otis> You dissect and eye and find all the parts.

Mike> I've never had to dissect anything to measure changes in
refraction from year to year.

Otis> What you have is a DESCRIPTIVE theory. If you wish and
accurate PREDICTIVE theory, then you must consider the
natural eye to be dynamic -- and test ONLY the natural eye
for its dynamic properties.

Mike> Before you can predict change, you must measure change. You
haven't done that.

Otis> That is what I mean by "alter our point-of-view" which you
obviously do not understand.

Mike> Obviously it's _MY_ understanding that's lacking here.

Otis> That is _YOUR_ understanding as the "majority" opinion,
versus Dr. Dave Guyton's understanding about the behavior
of the fundamental and natural eye.

Otis> Indeed you do _FAIL_ to understand the fact that the natural
eye is dynamic with respect to shifts or "deltas" in its
average visual environment. This is a completely _EXPECTED_
behavior characteristic of the natural eye.


Best,

Otis

-MT


Date: Sunday, August 22, 2004 1:12 PM


Dear Friends,


I will post this to you from Mike (OD) for what it is worth.
In science a DIRECT measurement is what YOU measure. An
extrapolated statement is an assumption.

Mike has made it a habit of insisting that his box-camera
(never-proven theory) some-how PROVES that the refractive status
of the dynamic eye does not CHANGE when you place a minus lens on
it.

I am certain of my statement here and I will place a $10,000
wager on the outcome of this type of experiment -- against equal
money that says that it will not. While this is the nature of
SCIENTIFIC (not medical) proof, it does have consequences for all
of us.

I am certain that Mike will figure out some way to weasel out
of facing direct scientific facts of this nature, and avoid
confronting the reality that the natural eye has always been
dynamic in the above sense.

But it must be you alone who decides this issue.

The reference is from, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness", Chaper
10, which I posted on sci.med.vision.

Best,

Otis